Anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

That’s too simplistic an explanation.. I’m sure you had other reasons too..




It often seems that everyone is locked into their own “reality” bubble.. each has their own idea of truth.. which depends on their own subjective experiences.. and the limits.. or depths.. of their understanding.

People will not tend to see things.. unless their mind is already going in that direction. In general.. they tend to only see the things.. that they feel.. back up their own position.. Things that give them a feeling of internal security.. when it comes to what they believe.

The further away we move from mainstream opinion.. the less chance there is of reaching an agreement.

Maybe this is because we all need to feel we have a sense of identity.. Christian.. atheist.. American.. British.. black.. white.. straight.. gay.. liberal.. leader.. follower… whatever.

Because,, without our sense of identity….... who are we.. ?

Could we all find a common sense of identity.. one day.. ?

Who knows.. ?

Maybe that is what we all need..

An answer to that classical question..

Who am I.. ?

Do you know who you are.. really.. ?

Does anybody.. ?

Isn’t that the big question.. ?

Identity.

----

"Who are you?" said the Caterpillar.

This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation.

Alice replied, rather shyly, "I - I hardly know, sir, just at present - at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then."

“What do you mean by that?" said the Caterpillar sternly. "Explain yourself!"

"I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, sir," said Alice, "because I'm not myself, you see."

Lewis Carroll

-

Last edited by Accelerator on 21 Sep 2008, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seriously guys, don't be so rough on Hell. Drawing exaggerated comparisons between it and the South is completely disingenuous.

I'm looking forward to Hell. I like heavy metal and George Carlin, so I don't understand the whole "suffering for eternity" issue. I mean, I hear Hitler is a real buzzkill, but he doesn't show up at many of the denizens' parties. Satan's pretty bad though; he gets real bitchy if you don't use a coaster, and he only drinks wine coolers. I mean, WTF?

This is my response to Accelerator.

http://deoxy.org/rst.htm

Proof and evidence can be the same thing.
Jumping from pressuppositions to unwarranted conclusions again, eh? Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Proof is a word, what matters is the connection the word implies. Since I was using the word proof as a synonym for the word evidence and the word prove as a synonym for the word test, you are really saying: There is no evidence in Science and Hypotheses cannot be tested or ascertained. Also, "There is no proof in science" is a fallacious argument used by religious fundies.

A hypothesis can be proved, or IN SIMPLER TERMS, its validity and accuracy can be determined or measured, it can be tested. Also, it is a FIGURE OF f*****g SPEECH YOU f*****g MORON. A hypothesis and theory can just never be proven to be 100% true or 100% false as, as the quote says, there is a margin of error. There is no absolute truth or absolute certainty or absolute accuracy in science. Get it f*****g right. You have the aesthetic and linguistic ability of a turd and are completely illiterate in the field of science. If you still can't get it though your thick skull then I can always use pre-school level English if you like.

You still have not realised that all I am doing is being done as a, rather successful, means to deliberately provoke you, despite the fact I said so THREE TIMES. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. See, I can regurgitate and incessantly repeat nonsensical irrelevant phrases too. If you want to continue to piss and s**t all over your own claims then by all means carry on highlighting your profound mental retardation, otherwise f**k off and leave the science to real experts as by your own admission, nothing you are saying is true and everything you have said has proven all points marvelously anway.

At first, I thought you were just an a**hole, but now you have proven that your level of intelligence is [metaphor]lower than the length of the ankle socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in quarry, in the low country.[/metaphor][satire]Prove it with science! Oh no wait, chever says we can't so it must be true![/satire]

[satire]You are an idiot and I shall prove so mathematically. Take your age and subtract it by ten. Were you smart back then? Of course not, you were an idiot. Think of something stupid you said back then that, whilst you thought was 'neat' or 'cool' at the time, makes you cringe now. Did you agree with it then? Of course you did, you were an idiot. Do you agree with it now? Of course not. So you will always be an idiot, it will just always take you another ten years to realise that.[/satire]

[seriousness]Oh and Magnus, I'm sorry for contributing to the de-railing of this topic but vindictive troglodytes, such as chever, with the mentality of 11 year-old children on crystal meth with guns, tends to ever so slightly grate my cheese.[/seriousness]

Last edited by Sling on 21 Sep 2008, 2:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

False. Evidence increases the confidence with which we can say that something is likely to be true. Proof makes it possible to be certain that something is definitely true. Proof exists in mathematics, not in science. All scientific knowledge is tentative. Newton's 3 laws of motion are not regarded as proven, although there is a substantial body of evidence supporting that they are true.

That's a popular misconception. Proof isn't neccessarily used to mean something is 100% true or 100% false. Proof can be used as a synonym for evidence anyway.
I've already said all of that.

Last edited by Sling on 21 Sep 2008, 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Colloquially, yes. But the fact that the masses have sloppy thinking and abuse language is not relevant here.

It all depends which definition you use. Some people use the word proof to mean 100% true or 100% false, some people use it to mean evidence and so on and so forth. Proof is a word, what matters is the connection the word implies. I agree that people abuse/don't understand language but that fact is irrelevant as language, by nature, is rather versatile.

I have already read though it..

---

"False identities are perhaps an even more potent form of mystification. In the absence of real community, people cling to all kinds of phony social identities--they contemplate and attempt to emulate a huge variety of roles presented to them in school, church, and, especially, the "entertainment" media. These social identities can be ethnic ("Italian- American"), residential ("New Yorker"), nationalistic ("patriot"), sexual ("gay"), cultural ("Giants fan"), and so on; but all are rooted in a common desire for affiliation, for belonging."

---

And.. that was my response..

In fact my response was much much longer..

I'm a manic thinker..

For this reason.. I decided to post it in bits.

That was bit one..

Maybe more bits later..

If the gods are willing..

-----

"I wonder if I've been changed in the night?

Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning?

I almost think I can remember feeling a little different.

But if I'm not the same, the next question is ..

'Who in the world am I?'

Ah, that's the great puzzle!'"

Lewis Carroll

---

“To put meaning in one's life may end in madness, But life without meaning is the torture of restlessness and vague desire. It is a boat longing for the sea and yet afraid.”

Edgar Masters

-

Magnus, I'm reading this thread a little late. One thing I will say - if I met you in real life I might go out to eat with ya, have a beer with ya, talk about which sports teams you think will beat who's, what musicians you think really have something that opens into a spiritual dimension, philosophy, history, TLC or Discovery, pretty much anything but very specifically I'm pretty certain there'd *never* be a word of politics (and yes, I do have friends of the like IRL).

Why not start a new topic and discuss.. proof.. together.. ?

I'm sure it would make for an interesting debate.

But we are supposed to discussing anachy here..

Yet there is not much evidence of it.

So.. shouldn't we be polite.. and show some consideration for those who would rather discuss anarchy.. ?

Just a friendly suggestion..


Nevertheless.. some things can be proved..

------

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”

Giordano Bruno

-

I had to look up IRL to find out what it means.
It's ironic that you posted Alice in Wonderland and suggested we debate the idea of what is truth and proof. Great story...
I highly recommend that book. Get a Carl Jung book too to help interpret it.

Again, my position is that it is best not to try to inflict our opinions of what we think reality onto others. I also don't think it is in any of our best interests to forcibly shove our beliefs onto others. We all have different perspectives, talents, thought processes, feelings, etc,.

Chever and Shawn Williams are always posting the hand/face Star Trek photo.
I don't think that the characters on Star Trek would argue like we do. What I like most about that show is how everyone cooperates.
They all have their specialties and respect one another. And they are of different species! They are sort of like Anarchists in that they don't follow a particular ideology, be it politics or religion. They are all different and tolerant of one another.
I don't remember seeing an episode about them doing any pledge of allegiance to a government or god.
But then again I'm not a trekkie.

Lewis Carroll had many unique insights..

A truly amazing mind.

He is often quoted in physics.

Jung has some amazing insights too.

----

"All the works of man have their origin in creative fantasy. What right have we then to depreciate imagination?"

"One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feelings. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child."

"The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity. The creative mind plays with the objects it loves."

"The debt we owe to the play of imagination is incalculable."

Carl Jung

-

So.. who are we.. ?

And.. how do we cooperate.. ?

---

"I believe that what we are is the sum total of the experiences that we've had; so as we choose experiences with greater integrity, as we choose to behave in a more ethical and generous way, we become more generous, more ethical beings; beings of integrity, loving people; and as you create that in you, you create the life that you have; - the future."

Sharon Stone

-

Thanx Magnus -- That's what I always liked about Jesus -- he was a rebel! Totally. He would not shut up, or change himself to blend in. ANd he did question everything and contradicted beliefs of the day. that made him a criminal in their eyes, and they treated him like one. but I think they wanted him dead because of something you mentioned. He questioned their old belief system. He wanted people to follow a purer line of belief, or it seems that he wanted to change things up but didn't seem to realize how much trouble that causes when individuals become too individualistic and start suggesting new belief systems that clash with the old.
It was his ability to get people to listen to him (he must have been one of those charismatic speakers ) that I think scared the daylights out of the more traditional leaders he was coming into conflict with. Spirituality can be, should be individualistic, but today I think it mostly comes under the geas of some church or other, if it isn't the pope, it's some new Evangelical guy 'healing' somebody on tv, so people get the idea that spirituality actually belongs to a church, whichever church you want to pick, they are all alike in this control feature. It doesn't, well, I think it just belongs to the actual person, but Religions in general need this control just to survive, control over their followers, their minds, but real spiritual growth individually could change the whole human race, I think, if it could occur, without the superficial cloak of dogma. Pure anarchy. People do seem to like to be told what to do and what to believe though. What Christianity became may not be what Christ had intended. I think he would have wanted more freedom, more personal involvement instead of just followers following. Maybe Jesus was an anarchist! Of sorts anyway!